I don't recall saying anything about pedants here. I'm not really bothered about grammatical mistakes in forum posts; as long as it's reasonably comprehensible, then that'll do me.

Tigzy, know your MKG and his sense of humour!

"It is science we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if you like the person making the argument. Sometimes the evidence supports the nice people and sometimes complete bastards are on the correct side of a scientific argument." -Strawkins

Richard my friend, you took me inRight after she threw me outYou gave me a hand and a soft place to landAnd ain’t that what friendship’s aboutIt was early last May, when you said I could stay‘til I could get back on my feetNow it’s December and you’re losin’ your temperAnd throwin’ me out on the street

Oh, don’t close the door on me DickJust think of the pain you’ll inflictThe second it slams I’ll be in a jamCompletely cut off when it clicksOh, don’t close the door on me Dick

You say I’m a jerk cause I don’t looked for workAnd I don’t do a thing round the houseI eat all your food and I lounge in the nudeDick you know how I love hangin’ outSure I hog the remote and I seldom use soapAnd some say I live like a slobBut right now I’m caught in a really tight spotSo Dick take your hand off that knob

And don’t close the door on me DickJust think of the pain you’ll inflictThe second it slams I’ll be in a jamCompletely cut off when it clicksOh, don’t close the door on me Dick

I’m down on my knees, I’m beggin’ Dick pleaseWon’t you help a buddy who’s in a tight squeezeI'm comin’ unhinged, if you don’t give an inch And show some compassion for a pal in a pinch

And don’t close the door on me DickJust think of the pain you’ll inflictThe second it slams I’ll be in a jamCompletely cut off when it clicksOh, don’t close the door on me Dick

Oh, don’t close the door on me DickJust think of the pain you’ll inflictThe second it shuts I’ll be totally nutsAnd talk about wounds you can’t lickOh, don’t close the door on me Dick

So after the 12:06 post that she made with her legit account the troll would likely have popped up and she did not need to hit refresh in order to see it. So then she has one and a half minutes to read the troll post and type out the response which is not impossible and seems more likely than some elaborate plan to create drama.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Dilurk wrote:...If we agree collectively that it is morally wrong to dox someone

How is such a collective agreement even possible?

The same way any morality is agreed upon by any group. The gestalt as Dawkins says. Morality is not set in stone, it is a (mostly) unwritten agreement in groups.

I see no evidence of an all encompassing collective agreement.

I never said there was. I did say "If". So we agree.

I count myself out of such a thing, as I consider that there are not so hypothetical situations in which it is incumbent in law to "dox" a third party.As I exempt myself from such an agreement, your premise is rendered invalid.

As I made no such premise in the first place, this is merely informational.

I will however note:

If moreover we are going to complain about Thunderf00t's additional outing then we are guilty of hypocrisy ourselves. It therefore has nothing to do with political gain in this case; it is merely the right thing to do.

That the 'we' here of course refers again to our collective position on morality as a group if we have one. I agree with you that we may not agree on this point so there is no collective gestalt on the morality of dropping public docs that are already public here. To further clarify. I can only speak for myself, that I would not have done it, but of course you are quite free to do so.

Wrong reading on my part then. I though you (MKG) were pointing at your own apparent pedantry. Oh, well.

"It is science we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if you like the person making the argument. Sometimes the evidence supports the nice people and sometimes complete bastards are on the correct side of a scientific argument." -Strawkins

Tigzy wrote:Nothing to hate when it comes to pedants. Way I see it, It's their own time they're wasting.

Oh, I am a pedant.An annoying pedant. (Is there any other kind?)A bloody annoying pedant.But one who hopes to be didactic in the course of one's pedantry.And, yes: I may be wasting my time with the majority, but it is those who gain the vital spark of elucidation for whom I strive.

Seems Elevatorgate has found some solid evidence of Surly's involvement in the DMCAing

Looking at the arguments in Lousy Canucks thread it really does seem that they are against the idea of 'fair use'. I remember the time this issue came up when the movie "Expelled" (back in the good old days when this was something that happened to PZ rather than what he does to anyone who disagrees with him) used John Lennon's Imagine. Yoko Ono objected but lost her case on the basis of fair use. At the time there was some disagreement amongst the atheist community about this. Yes, it was horrible that Imagine was used by that lousy film but perhaps in the end it's better to uphold the principles of fair use. Well, the FTBers disavow this notion. According to them anything that is produced using something (like a photo) from a copyright holder requires the copyright holders permission before it can be used by another party. Does anyone seriously think the FTBers will follow this rule? If they see something written that infuriates them (as if!) they will ask for permission before they quote it?If they see a picture, say a joke or a captioned photo, they will only describe it in words and will not post the picture on their site without asking permission?

I reckon file a counter-claim, then if she takes it further just quickly take it down. Will that work? (I'm no expert on law).

I've been arguing (politely) with Jim Lippard on Twitter about this. I'm claiming that she should have asked Justin first, and if that happened then he would have been morally obliged to comply. Given that she's trying to force him to before even asking him, if he wins then he's no longer morally obliged to take it down.

Seems Elevatorgate has found some solid evidence of Surly's involvement in the DMCAing

Looking at the arguments in Lousy Canucks thread it really does seem that they are against the idea of 'fair use'. I remember the time this issue came up when the movie "Expelled" (back in the good old days when this was something that happened to PZ rather than what he does to anyone who disagrees with him) used John Lennon's Imagine. Yoko Ono objected but lost her case on the basis of fair use. At the time there was some disagreement amongst the atheist community about this. Yes, it was horrible that Imagine was used by that lousy film but perhaps in the end it's better to uphold the principles of fair use. Well, the FTBers disavow this notion. According to them anything that is produced using something (like a photo) from a copyright holder requires the copyright holders permission before it can be used by another party. Does anyone seriously think the FTBers will follow this rule? If they see something written that infuriates them (as if!) they will ask for permission before they quote it?If they see a picture, say a joke or a captioned photo, they will only describe it in words and will not post the picture on their site without asking permission?

Then PZ might be in deep shit with his Dungeon. I am ,under contractual closes, obliged to leave the way my name and image are used be controlled by my label for commercial exploitation. Does PZ make money out of his blog? I do think so.

*Ponders*

Nah, not worth it right now.

"It is science we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if you like the person making the argument. Sometimes the evidence supports the nice people and sometimes complete bastards are on the correct side of a scientific argument." -Strawkins

ccdimage wrote:So after the 12:06 post that she made with her legit account the troll would likely have popped up and she did not need to hit refresh in order to see it. So then she has one and a half minutes to read the troll post and type out the response which is not impossible and seems more likely than some elaborate plan to create drama.

Perhaps. Perhaps a copy-n-paste party. Unless TF coughs up logs, chances of knowing truth is nil. Writing a coherent 50 word reply in 60 seconds is not an easy task even for non-baboons. And the bit about advertising to the world she finally has a job...

smilies are for reetards | reason is overrated | "Home is where the floor is." -- X | “The citizen's job is to be rude - to pierce the comfort of professional intercourse by boorish expressions of doubt” -- John Ralston Saul | Aratina is a stupid cunt

Notung wrote:I reckon file a counter-claim, then if she takes it further just quickly take it down. Will that work? (I'm no expert on law).

I've been arguing (politely) with Jim Lippard on Twitter about this. I'm claiming that she should have asked Justin first, and if that happened then he would have been morally obliged to comply. Given that she's trying to force him to before even asking him, if he wins then he's no longer morally obliged to take it down.

She filed the DMCA through Blogger and they removed his whole post at first. Once he removed the image, he was able to re-post the blog.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Philippe Giordana, 205 Avenue de la Californie, 06200 Nice, France. 1st Floor, door on the right when you come up the stairs. Mind the cat, she tends to get out when the door is open. The snake is not interested in door-openings.

Well, that's done...

Tapatalk let's me use Location Services if I choose. So, I should be mapped in real time below.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Philippe Giordana, 205 Avenue de la Californie, 06200 Nice, France. 1st Floor, door on the right when you come up the stairs. Mind the cat, she tends to get out when the door is open. The snake is not interested in door-openings.

Well, that's done...

Tapatalk let's me use Location Services if I choose. So, I should be mapped in real time below.

I don’t have much regard for Vacula, but even I feel a tiny bit sorry for what’s likely to happen to him if Amy decides to follow through on this. Federal perjury charges are no game. Nor are Los Angeles attorneys who deal in intellectual property cheap (making now a lovely time to buy that Surly-Ramics piece you’ve been looking at). Vacula’s likely cost himself a lot with this mistake.

Course, given Zvan's previous inability to differentiate between the concepts of damage and change, I think her legal knowledge can be taken with a grain of salt. Fair Use law as regards the internet is nowhere near as clear-cut as she seems to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

"Jews have 188 Nobel prize winners, most scientists are Atheist, and Muslims are searching for name of Allah on potato."

Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:

Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.

I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceive”. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....

I don’t have much regard for Vacula, but even I feel a tiny bit sorry for what’s likely to happen to him if Amy decides to follow through on this. Federal perjury charges are no game. Nor are Los Angeles attorneys who deal in intellectual property cheap (making now a lovely time to buy that Surly-Ramics piece you’ve been looking at). Vacula’s likely cost himself a lot with this mistake.

Course, given Zvan's previous inability to differentiate between the concepts of damage and change, I think her legal knowledge can be taken with a grain of salt. Fair Use law as regards the internet is nowhere near as clear-cut as she seems to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

Ah, yes, Legal Expert (especially on "Cyber-Stalking") Stefunny. I think she works at the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. I do see that Hannibal is there, probably trolling (assuming this is the same one who was trolling Sally at TF). Lulz must ensue.

PZ Myers definition of irony - 8 October 2013 at 9:15 am (UTC -5) "You don’t get to simultaneously adopt a snide, superior tone AND claim that you’re a martyr"

Heheh. This is JohnTheOther, a real live MRA, and arch enemy of PeaZy. The more rationally and calmly that John speaks, the more into a rage PZ gets. It's very amusing whenever PZ freaks out about him. I'd link to a couple old articles where PZ has temper tantrums about him, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

franc wrote:Perhaps. Perhaps a copy-n-paste party. Unless TF coughs up logs, chances of knowing truth is nil. Writing a coherent 50 word reply in 60 seconds is not an easy task even for non-baboons. And the bit about advertising to the world she finally has a job...

That is a possibility. Type out the first post and use the incognito mode on a chrome browser to make the troll post then send them both simultaneously and have a reply ready in notepad to cut and paste. I am not saying that something like this did not happen, but it seems a little to sophisticated and if she was going to go to so much trouble creating this plan to make drama I think she would have realised that she does not need to have the reply to the troll post ready to go. Maybe a friend made the troll post and she had already seen it before it was sent so she had time to mentally compose a response.I am thinking she was feeding an obvious troll. As soon as she started posting the possibility of a troll appearing was high. As for her typing speed, some of her other responses on the board were quite snappy and I don't think she is slow witted. /speculationImpossible to tell from this angle.

Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:

Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.

I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceive”. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....

Then don't use chromosomes. Why not go with the morphology? Pretty simple then.

PZ Myers definition of irony - 8 October 2013 at 9:15 am (UTC -5) "You don’t get to simultaneously adopt a snide, superior tone AND claim that you’re a martyr"

franc wrote:Seeing as detox/rehab was a recent topic - it reminds me of the crap they used to make in forced craft sessions that were part of the "healing" regime.

In older times, they used basket weaving. I think they stopped due it becoming associated with mental health. In the late 80s, a hospitalized friend made me a rather rough leather wallet during her 'art therapy' time. As a distraction, just something to do while confined to a treatment place, it's all fine, but when it's claimed as therapy, I smell pseudoscientific woo without anything too solid behind it.

Badger3k wrote:Ah, yes, Legal Expert (especially on "Cyber-Stalking") Stefunny. I think she works at the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. I do see that Hannibal is there, probably trolling (assuming this is the same one who was trolling Sally at TF). Lulz must ensue.

Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.

I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceive”. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....

Agreed, and just to be clear I have a huge amount of empathy for people dealing with issues like that. It crosses a line for me when people insist upon how they are to be treated and what other people must think of them.

Well Jean is entitled to her opinion but Ophelia's actions at the time were nothing like the Ophelia we see today (apart from the obsessive freaking out about being called names by trolls) and Jeans action in supporting the Tom Johnson story, even when it's author was shown to be a liar, were not exactly the example of moral perfection.

And the other commenters are still arguing against him, posing 'difficult' questions. What's the point if he can't respond?

So they can feel superior? Having the last word is part of a lot of people, and some want to respond and make a statement of their views, even though no reply will come. The comment after Stefunny's "bye" shows that at least some don't even read Justin's posts, just make assumptions.

PZ Myers definition of irony - 8 October 2013 at 9:15 am (UTC -5) "You don’t get to simultaneously adopt a snide, superior tone AND claim that you’re a martyr"

Well Jean is entitled to her opinion but Ophelia's actions at the time were nothing like the Ophelia we see today (apart from the obsessive freaking out about being called names by trolls) and Jeans action in supporting the Tom Johnson story, even when it's author was shown to be a liar, were not exactly the example of moral perfection.

I just realized the comparisons between the two occurrences - "Tom" was talking about getting harassed by atheists, and so do the Skepchicks and their groupies. Both have the same amount of evidence (well, I think there were a few cases that have been confirmed, so their is a bit more evidence for the sexism bit, but it's blown way out of proportion). Does this make PZ the Chris Mooney of Watsongate?

PZ Myers definition of irony - 8 October 2013 at 9:15 am (UTC -5) "You don’t get to simultaneously adopt a snide, superior tone AND claim that you’re a martyr"

Certainly seemed to be the case in gran-pappy’s days, but the waters seem to have muddied since then. For instance:

Wikipedia, Gender Verification wrote:While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.

I’ve always had some sympathy for Oscar Wilde’s aphorism on being asked by a woman for the primary difference between the sexes: “Of that madam – I can not conceive”. Suitably succinct and pithy, but tends to leave a whole bunch of people out in the cold. Best, I think, to realize that each sex is a spectrum with quite a bit of overlap ....

Then don't use chromosomes. Why not go with the morphology? Pretty simple then.

Tempting, but probably because the morphology really is a fully populated spectrum – somewhat arbitrary then where the line is drawn. For instance, as an extreme case, maybe somewhat hypothetical, it seems a “woman” can have XX and a certain set of attributes while a “man” can have XY and virtually the same set of attributes. Not an easy thing to define as suggested by this from the same article:

And with psychologists involved? What the hell does it mean to talk of how men and women feel about anything? Normal within one or two standard (or not so standard) deviations? Chasing our tails in more ways than one.

But that’s why it seems to be tempting to simply rely, as I did, on the chromosomes – nice, neat, clearly defined line in the sand. Although I gather that even in that area there are other factors in play as, apparently, it is only a portion of the Y chromosome that manifests various male attributes.

Mooney et. al. were attempting to allege that there is a real problem in the atheist community in regards to outspoken atheists being rude and insulting friendly religious people willy nilly... just as Watson et. al. are attempting to paint a picture of a cabal of evil misogynist atheists trying to "put women in their place". There are lots of stories, but no substance; anecdotes are elevated to evidence used to tar a group of individuals (atheists) that are already much maligned by the general public.

In both cases a group of people see themselves as crusaders against some nebulous evil that doesn't seem to exist to any significant extent. In both cases, the actions of internet trolls were confused and/or intertwined with bigger names in atheism. Just as Jerry Coyne "became" the catalyst for rude atheists in Tom Johnson Stories, DJ Grothe,ThunderfOOt etc. are to be blamed for the "thousands of rape threats" directed at Skepchicks and all other offenses and perceived "misogyny" focused on those associated with FTB.

Kazez is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes she seems highly reasonable and rational; at other times she is almost indistinguishable from a full rank Baboolie.

Good to see that my bullshit detector is functioning; was having doubts. A few months back she wrote a comment which set the alarm bells ringing. To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!

Sorry for the lack of activity. My laptop is broken and I have now ordered a new one. I am using a really, really, really shitty computer now. My mobile phone also limits me. I hope to catch up on things soon. I see Stephanie's post and may respond. Now, though, I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen on this shit computer.

TFJ wrote:To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!

Yeah, I don't understand why people object to simply having a Men's Rights Movement [Disclaimer: I'm not an MRA myself]. Perhaps they could point out that MRAs are sometimes bad, or usually bad, or even always bad, but that wouldn't mean that just having an MRM is a bad idea.

The only argument I can think for that opinion is that women have it worse. I'm prepared to agree with that (I haven't studied it but it's the respectable position). But so what? All that proves is that feminism is a more pressing issue than 'masculism' or whatever. That doesn't mean that at least some people shouldn't try to ensure that men aren't discriminated against on certain issues. Just because some people have it worse, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to fix something (where have you heard that before?).

Kazez is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes she seems highly reasonable and rational; at other times she is almost indistinguishable from a full rank Baboolie.

Good to see that my bullshit detector is functioning; was having doubts. A few months back she wrote a comment which set the alarm bells ringing. To paraphrase, she said something along the lines of "There's a men's right's movement, the thought makes me want to vomit". Philosopher my arse!

If this isn’t exactly what you’re getting at, it certainly seems rather close to the bulls-eye:

Jean Kazez wrote:A little note about the men's rights movement (in response to someone way up): I instinctively gag at the thought, but I'm curious about it. David Benatar has a new book coming out very soon called "The Second Sexism" and I mean to have a look. In fact, it's on my radar as a book we will want to review at The Philosophers' Magazine.

If this isn’t exactly what you’re getting at, it certainly seems rather close to the bulls-eye:

Jean Kazez wrote:A little note about the men's rights movement (in response to someone way up): I instinctively gag at the thought, but I'm curious about it. David Benatar has a new book coming out very soon called "The Second Sexism" and I mean to have a look. In fact, it's on my radar as a book we will want to review at The Philosophers' Magazine.

Not sure if that is the quote I was thinking of. Searched but couldn't find it. My recollection may well be off, in which case my apologies to Kazez. I do find her knee-jerk, shallow antipathy to Justin to be a bit silly. She should stick to commenting on the generalities if she is unwilling to educate herself on the history surrounding individuals.

Notung wrote:Ok - uncharitable reading of Kazez, but you could say what I said in response to her real comment as well. Why the instinctive gag?

Assuming that that was more or less directed at me, I might point to something in that article:

Elevator-gate made me see the atheist-crowd in a new light. I realized there wasn't just a possible tone problem in the atheosphere, but there were a lot of problems. For one, there are a lot of misogynistic loons. They say amazingly absurd and revolting things, and there are some fairly respectable people who give these people safe harbour. For another, there are people on the respectable feminist side who simplistically [use, champion] "us-them" situations, sweeping complexities under the rug. There's no way for me to position myself with respect to this mess, because I'm against the misogynistic loons, but also against the simplifications of the supposedly feminist side. So--STAY AWAY!

So presumably her “instinctive gag” was based on a conflation of “misogynistic loons” with “Men’s Rights Activists”. Maybe a case of some problematic categorical thinking which, one might think, should be the last thing a philosopher should be guilty of.

Although I note that she forthrightly identified the problem of:

... people on the respectable [quote, unquote] feminist side who simplistically [use, champion] "us-them" situations, sweeping complexities under the rug.

Which probably didn’t win her many friends on the Skepchick and FTB side of the fence ....

Yes, I think she's mainly on 'our side' but disagrees with a lot of the stuff that is also on 'our side'. That could apply to other people too - for instance Russell Blackford doesn't like a certain 'c' word and D4M10N agrees with RW on elevatorgate...

I think I'm a similar case. Sometimes I see things on Twitter from 'our side' that make me shake my head.

justinvacula wrote:...I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen...

Er... is that a good idea?

I don't identify as an MRA or necessarily agree with all of their views. A Guest post give my views, not theirs. Their audience is interested and I would like to make more people aware of this issue (especially if it actually does go to court as Zvan alludes to, but I doubt it will and hope it does not because that's just flat out ridiculous.)

Badger3k wrote:Ah, yes, Legal Expert (especially on "Cyber-Stalking") Stefunny. I think she works at the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. I do see that Hannibal is there, probably trolling (assuming this is the same one who was trolling Sally at TF). Lulz must ensue.

Well, I can't say I am surprised. Stephanie Zvan fails to rebuke those who use DMCA claims which lead to censorship. At least she provided links to my posts and used my name unlike 'Canuck.' Will one Freethought Blogs blogger defend me and rebuke persons for filing DMCA claims at their critics? Whether you love me, hate me, or are indifferent, DMCA filing is repugnant. ...and is 'Surly Amy' really going to take me to court because I used a photo? Honestly?

justinvacula wrote:I don't identify as an MRA or necessarily agree with all of their views. A Guest post give my views, not theirs. Their audience is interested and I would like to make more people aware of this issue (especially if it actually does go to court as Zvan alludes to, but I doubt it will and hope it does not because that's just flat out ridiculous.)

I know all of those things, but I wonder if it might look like a blemish on your record. Of course, posting on an MRA site (and I do think there's some misogyny there, even if Astrokid disagrees) doesn't make you an MRA, but if I didn't know better and saw that you'd written an article on there, it would look as if you are an MRA and a participant in the sort of misogyny that goes on there. You aren't, of course.

I'm not saying don't do it - I'm saying be careful that it isn't used against you. Perhaps say at the beginning (without being nasty to the MRAs) that you're not an MRA yourself, or something like that.

justinvacula wrote: I'd say it was a pretty questionable thing to do, considering that a good number of us here would probably be up in arms if a baboon posted the address of a Slymepitter on FfTB or Skepchick.

I, for one, would not be 'up in arms' nor 'down in legs'.

If it is public, it is FUCKING PUBLIC!!!

An 8 year old could find this info on their mobile during a gymnastic vaulting-session without breaking a sweat!(Only taking a break to distribute ze dirt around ze compound, ja?)

Oh, puulleze, as they say.

Well, I'd argue it's public but making it available so easily on an open forum might be bad form. Lousy Jason did the same thing, basically, and we kind of nailed him for it.

PZ did the same thing when in his last couple of Thunderf00t posts, he made a point to use TF's real name. Even though TF's real name is fairly common knowledge by now, there was no good reason for PZ to start using it, other than as a way to be a dick and to attempt to make TF uncomfortable. I'm with you on this issue. What Justin Vacula did was completely unnecessary and somewhat petty imo.